SAR-21 on Popular Mechanics
-
i think we should all cool down abit yeah? although SAR21 has been praised due to the fact tat is a has a in-built laser aiming device and a 1.5x Optical scope (3x in the sharpshooter variant, already in service in SAF), it is still not battle-proven unlike the AR series or AK series of rifles.
-
I see no reason to praise it for having a built in LAM. I'd rather get a weapon like the G36K and configure it to my personal use.
-
Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:
When someone relies only on Janes Defence and disregards the testimony of thousands of grunts who actually use the weapon day in day out and are contradicting what Janes says... I think the arrogrant one is quite clear.
Has this gun expert being with the SAR-21 in actual field conditions and seen how it actually works in the field before writing his article?
No.
Also what do you think this gun expert would say when he gets to compare other systems like the G36C, the Tavor, the FN2000 and what have you not against the SAR-21?
Going by your logic, we ought to trust the computer engineers at Microsoft when they say that Microsoft Windows is a good and stable OS because they know more about computers then us, regardless of the experience and problems we actually have with Windows and the existence of better systems out there.
Also recently, the military experts behind future weapons duffed up on describing our MATADOR as capable of firing smart munitions that can tell between soft and hard targets when the actual smartness of the weapon is the grunt using it and manually selecting the warhead mode, are you going to argue on the basics of this article?
Basically you are relying on an article that is written who no particular point of reference, not to mention you are trying to claim bizzare likely advantages that it has over other firearms, most amusingly being you trying to support lionnoisy's handbag carry stance as an advantage, the superiority of the 1.5x over advanced modular sighting systems like reflex and ACOG systems, and right not the false claim that factory zero offers it an advantage over comparable firearms when a simple check reveals just the SAR-21 main competitors in the market already come with such a feature.
Basically your approach is lionnoisy, selectively pick an article and harp on it repeatedly using the "qualifications" of the writers as a subsitite for logic, which is not surprising given in the Tavor thread your main push for the merit of your arguments was not in it's logic, but that you were some kind of an "officer" who spent far more time on the range then the normal "specs" and "grunts" and hence had the right to overwrite their concern.
I remember most amusingly, you argued that since it was possible for you to engage targets with the 1.5x scope, anybody else calling for a better system was "weak" and not a "true soldier", brushing aside the obvious and great advantage that such systems offered to the soldier in combat.
A true nut case would be the one that chooses to hide behind a single article and is unable to argue his case convincingly with people who actually had real experience with the weapon who contradict him. In fact it seems his own resource is to pretty much say "my teacher said so" even when faced with overwhelming evidence or come up with "new materials and technology" that only exist in his own head.
So who is the false soldier here? The one who only knows how to quote media articles or the one who draws from his actual experience with the equipment in the field?
Microsoft windows ? is it a good operation system, well the fact that you and most of the rest are still using it - then it must be good !!!
If going by your logic - is Microsoft Windows have so many problems and the existence of better systems out there ? - well you still using it successfully, did on it everything from work to play .... it is not good .
If you think better system are out there -why are not you or the whole lot of others still using it.Go ahead, name me 6 rfiles that is from the same time of SAR-21 - which the basic model issues - that have scope that is so much better and advance then SAR-21 ?
-
fark u u understand,i juz comparing that tactical gloves and artic gloves when using.. U tell me why i can't compare using it on SAR 21??? Please farking open ur eyes big big on the thread title and it say SAR21. So naturally i compare it by using SAR21,if it was on M16,i will gladly compare it with M16. and please farking open ur eyes big big, my nick is gaoxingdcf07, not gaosingdcf07. my nick can't be too difficult to write,u farking blur cock.. U just only know how to quote from Jane's articles and when people rufuted ur claims and u start to quote again... Typical of a empty vessel making noise
-
backward strategy" - was meant to be an insult to your comment of forward strategy !!! You just prove how ding-a-ling you are - please read the your own orginial comments and mine again .
Well Story " Red Ridding Hood " Wolf, I guess you insulted yourself with the backward strategy since no one knows what it is.
-
Peru, SAR-21 carbine with an EOTech holographic sight and foregrip. The SAR-21 is currently undergoing evaluations for further adoption by the Peru Marines' Special Forces units
-
Interesting pic. FN2000, SAR21, I also see flippers and a bowman headpiece. And swords.
And oh the SAR21 with rails is fugly. AUG A3 is so much nicer.
-
very nice of the peru forces to try it out
their BDU looks very nice
-
You know what's funny? Other nations are using advanced versions of the SAR-21 while our own troops are stuck with the basic weapon.
-
Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:
You know what's funny? Other nations are using advanced versions of the SAR-21 while our own troops are stuck with the basic weapon.
SAF is kind enough to let others trial out 1st ma... :D
-
Microsoft windows ? is it a good operation system, well the fact that you and most of the rest are still using it - then it must be good !!!
LOL, you are now officially beyond hope.
So the fact that many people are still smoking and alive means that it's good for their health lah?
My goodness, what is your mental age?
Go ahead, name me 6 rfiles that is from the same time of SAR-21 - which the basic model issues - that have scope that is so much better and advance then SAR-21 ?
That's a nice try to put a number on things. Why insist on 6 and not 600?
The only way to make a fair judgement is to compare the SAR versus other rifles at that time which came out with an INTERGAL optical sighting system at that time, one also needs to take note that iron sights are still popular in rifle designs at that time as well as the option of going P-rail modular, which eventually became more popular then the intergal system. The only way to make a fair and rational judgement is when you compare the SAR-21 in the "raygun bullpups with intergal optical sights" class.
Hence if you are talking about intergal optical sights when it comes to such rifles, the SAR-21 basic has prehaps the most unimpressive sights in the class.
Tavor, G36, Vector CR-21, and even the crappy SA80 (which was introduced much eariler then the SAR-21) have far better bare-bones sighting systems then the primitive SAR-21 1.5X scope.
In fact, note that the later versions of the SAR-21 that ST generated like MMS or lightweight carbine did away with the crappy scope entirely and tried something else.
What else can I say except that you are in denial?
-
maybe SAF wans us to get our boys to get us of the basic first ???
then move on to the advanced version ????
-
Originally posted by Sepecat:
Well Story " Red Ridding Hood " Wolf, I guess you insulted yourself with the backward strategy since no one knows what it is.
If you claim to understand SAF - forward strategy, then you would understand the reverse of it which is backward strategy . -
Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:
LOL, you are now officially beyond hope.
So the fact that many people are still smoking and alive means that it's good for their health lah?
My goodness, what is your mental age?
That's a nice try to put a number on things. Why insist on 6 and not 600?
The only way to make a fair judgement is to compare the SAR versus other rifles at that time which came out with an INTERGAL optical sighting system at that time, one also needs to take note that iron sights are still popular in rifle designs at that time as well as the option of going P-rail modular, which eventually became more popular then the intergal system. The only way to make a fair and rational judgement is when you compare the SAR-21 in the "raygun bullpups with intergal optical sights" class.
Hence if you are talking about intergal optical sights when it comes to such rifles, the SAR-21 basic has prehaps the most unimpressive sights in the class.
Tavor, G36, Vector CR-21, and even the crappy SA80 (which was introduced much eariler then the SAR-21) have far better bare-bones sighting systems then the primitive SAR-21 1.5X scope.
In fact, note that the later versions of the SAR-21 that ST generated like MMS or lightweight carbine did away with the crappy scope entirely and tried something else.
What else can I say except that you are in denial?
To judge things, we need facts and figures - i ask for just 6 ! And yet you struggle, in the end give me 4 only. Tavor, SA80 - yes they have better sights. G36 - 1.5x sight also & Vector CR-21 - 1x sight - nothing special - I put them as equal. From 4 of top rifle of standard configuration you mention - i only see 2 of them have better sights only. -
Originally posted by storywolf:
To judge things, we need facts and figures - i ask for just 6 ! And yet you struggle, in the end give me 4 only. Tavor, SA80 - yes they have better sights. G36 - 1.5x sight also & Vector CR-21 - 1x sight - nothing special - I put them as equal. From 4 of top rifle of standard configuration you mention - i only see 2 of them have better sights only.
The G36 sight is extremely innovative. It comes with a 3x sight for long range engagement as well as a 1x red dot sight for fast short range engagement above the 3x sight. Unfortunately this innovation is not a feature in the export version which has only the 1.5x scope as u had mentioned. -
But the G36 is so modular that you can easily swap out the carrying handle for the RIS top rail and fit just about any damned thing you want on it.
-
To judge things, we need facts and figures - i ask for just 6 ! And yet you struggle, in the end give me 4 only. Tavor, SA80 - yes they have better sights. G36 - 1.5x sight also & Vector CR-21 - 1x sight - nothing special - I put them as equal. From 4 of top rifle of standard configuration you mention - i only see 2 of them have better sights only.
The basic G36 sights that the Germans use are far more advanced then SAR-21, as foxtrout8 has mentioned it. Notice the irony here? The Germans export stepped-down models for customers while retaining the best for their own troops while our own ST seems to ship the best stuff for overseas customers while retaining the bare-bones models for our own troops.
Note the G36 sights are a true example of battlefield innovation and not some "let's slap on a basic 1.5x and tell the grunts to rely on our innovative, world's first intergal LAD to do the job for night fighting".
The Vector 1X reflex sight offers significant advantages over the SAR-21 sight, most important being in it's ability to be used in low light without resorting to the LAD. In a low light engagement users of the SAR-21 basic are at a significant disadvantage versus users of a reflex system.
In fact you will notice that advanced versions of the SAR like MMS do away entirely with the 1.5x and go back to 1x but using a reflex system instead or mounting more advanced systems when magnification is needed.
I am struggling? I am giving you a chance by trying to answer your question as fairly as possible. If you really insist on me giving 6 rifles at the time you are really digging your own grave.
First an foremost I focused on answering the question fairly, given at the time the SAR-21 was released arms manufacturers were deciding between going P-rail or intergal optical systems. Ultimately flexibility ruled in favour of the P-rail modular systems which in their basic configuration will be mounting a scope that is far superior to that of the SAR-21.
So how are you going to judge a weapons like that which have no "basic" version to speak of?
A good example would be the FN2000, which has no "basic" version but is instead designed to accept just about anything you can slap on it from reflex sights to a computerized laser guided grenade launching system.
Another issue is also how the weapon is actually implemented and used. We can try to argue that the SAR-21 has better sights then a bare-bones M-16 but as it turns out now the American grunts are using M-16s running on P-rail systems that are equipped with far better sights then our SAR-21 basic, allowing them to outshoot us anyday. Hence our argument becomes useless and just talk that has little bearing in reality. Basically this is just a fight for bragging rights ignoring what is really happening.
This is where your agument is flawed, one cannot just look at the basic model of the weapon and compare them basic to basic but instead look at how the entire weapon is designed to be used in the end. Going by your argument, the SAR-21 has more "advanced" sights then rifles like the SCAR which come with iron sights but were designed from the outset to be modular weapons to accept modular sights, but are perfectly happy to go on their iron sights.
Flexibility is the key here, so how you want to compare? By trying to restrict the case to something that is not reflective of what is really happening in the real world or by making your arguments and points based on things which will have basis in reality?
The fact is quite basic- we claim to be one of the most advanced militaries in the region, or even the world with out weapons R&D technology but can't even equip our own troops with a proper sighting system that is well thought out and designed that offers the soldiers options and not gimmicks like intergal LAD and factory zero which are more or less one-trick ponies.
What we need are sights that are flexible (ie. modular) as well as offering us options (not having to rely soley on LAD for night fighting with the main scope becoming mostly useless). In this respect the SAR-21 basic cannot be considered to be that good a rifle when we can do much better, unless you want to say "ooh, our SAR has more advanced sights then the Khaybar KH2002 assault rifle"... which unfortunately, isn't really an achivement at all.
Ultimately it's easy to construct any argument to your favour by asking for restrictive conditions to sastify them, but it does not follow that the argument you construct from these conditions to "trap" your opponents will actually lend any merit to your case at all.
The crux of the issue still remains, the ST promised to equip our troops with the best that they could with their resources and technology in the SAR-21 series, but the way things really go seems to indicate that some corners are being cut here and there. Arguing till the sun goes down on the merits of the SAR-21 basic will not retify the situtation that we can put better weapons into the hands of our troops and are not doing it for some reason.
And you know what is the greater irony? They are touting new systems like SSW when we can't even bring our troops up to date with a modernized version of the SAR-21, giving them a model that is running on 1990s weapons design thinking when the rest of the world has moved on quite a bit.
The point remains, the SAR-21 basic needs to be changed or swapped out for some other variant if we want to at least claim that our troops have the best weapon they can get from ST. The irony I feel is some of our grunts train with a thai trooper, and see him carrying a more advanced version of the SAR-21.
-
even the Peru ppl are having better variant of SAR21 than our boys...
-
Thats cuz they're evaluating it atm. Besides, thats how it is. You always sell the nicer goods to others because u earn more, while u keep the most basic crap for yrself because nobody's paying u more than the bare minimum to equip your own people.
-
so many better rifles, sniper's ones too are shown in discovery channel "future weapons"..
very impressive !!!
Eg, now got 6.8mm rounds instead of 5.56 (M16) and 7.62 (AK47)
-
u mean the PWD that uses the 6mm bullets ?????
i tink is very nice IMO
got the length of an MP5 and the works of an M16
got collasible(ps,speling no good) stock !!
make it very handy in CBQ !!!
-
PWD or PDW?
-
there are several more new rifles that uses the new 6mm bullet...
i think there are 6 and 6.8 mm bullets now
another one i saw is can change barrel to fire 5.56 or 7.62 mm and many other parts too in 2 mins !
-
If you claim to understand SAF - forward strategy, then you would understand the reverse of it which is backward strategy .
StorywolfEveryone knows forward strategy. But you cant explain your own invention of backward startegy.
